- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS is second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant Badri Prasad with a prayer that he may be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal no. 3952 of 2013. The first bail application of the appellant has been rejected on 10.1.2014, after considering the merits of the case.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a cross case, the first information report of the present case has been lodged by P.W. 1, Anand Swaroop Sharma alleging therein that one niece of P.W. 1( Anand Swaroop Sharma) was killed by Vinay and the appellant Badri Prasad. Vinay was in jail but the appellant Badri Prasad was released on bail, in that case, father of the girl, Ram Autar Sharma was doing the pairvi. The cousin of the first informant namely Ramesh Kumar was a witness in that case, he was providing help in the pairokari of the above mentioned case. The proceedings of cancelling the bail were pending, the appellant, his son Ram Kumar and other associates were pressurising Ram Autar Sharma to settle the dispute through a compromise and not to do the parivi in the above mentioned case but Ram Autar Sharma was not agreed, he has stated that the murderer of his daughter again will go to jail. On 21.8.1995 Ram Autar Sharma and Naresh Kumar, boarded in a train at Khurja, which was going to Delhi, at about 7.30 a.m. the deceased Ram Autar Sharma came out from the train for urination, at that time the appellant along with his son Raj Kumar and other persons was present on the platform. The deceased Ram Autar Sharma was beaten by using bricks and stone blows, Naresh Kumar came in rescue then a crowed was gathered there, from the side of the crowed somebody discharged shots which hit the appellant. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away but the deceased Ram Autar Sharma succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The injured Naresh was serious in condition. According to the post mortem examination, the deceased has sustained 15 ante mortem injuries and the injured Naresh has sustained 7 injuries. In support of the prosecution version 10 witnesses have been examined, the prosecution has not come with clean hands in causing the injuries to the appellant, even according to the prosecution version, it was a co -incident that the deceased came out from the train on the platform for urination, in such circumstances, the commission of the offence as alleged by the prosecution has become doubtful. The presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the place of incident was also doubtful. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity. The deceased himself has sustained 16 injuries, he was medically examined on 21.8.1995 at 8.45 a.m. The alleged incident has occurred in some other manner, the injuries sustained by the appellant have not been properly explained. The cross FIR was lodged in case crime no. 214 of 1995 under section 307 I.P.C. in which Anand was also arrested on 22.8.1995 by the G.R.P. According to the memo dated 21.8.1995 prepared by Pawan Kumar, the then A.S.M. Railway Station Dankaur at 7.35 a.m. to A.S.I. G.R.P. Chauki mentioning therein that on receipt of a telephonic information from Raj Kumar, Switch man of west cabin that a quarrel has taken place near west cabin and requested that A.S.I. G.R.P. take necessary action, makes the whole story doubtful. The prosecuting agency deliberately suppressed the crucial/material evidence including the G.D. 1 and G.D. No. 10 of G.R.P. Dankaur, Railway Station. The appellant is an old man aged about 80 years. He is suffering from serious ailment. The conviction of the appellant is not safe, he may be released on bail.;